Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes some of his victory credits were bombers and other (eg. floatplanes, Foss himself was once shot down by the rear gunner of a Type 0 Observation Seaplane, aka 'Pete'). Moreover at that time of war Japanese losses were typically around 25-33% of what Allied pilots were credited with, not as accurate as in some theaters and periods in WWII (eg., it's not fair to compare that score *numerically* to ones credited to later Allied pilots under stricter rules ca. 1944-5). But relatively speaking Foss was an outstanding pilot, and at least as importantly, an outstanding leader. The overall accomplishments of F4F units in 1942 against Zeroes were better than anybody else's in that period of the war and Foss was a major leader at a critical time.Not looking for trouble here as a "junior member" but I think some of Foss's 26 kills were bettys/other ducks (I know you guys are aware of this already).
The fact that he did have at least "many" zero kills while flying a wildcat does tell you something though. I imagine there were tough times when he would have traded in his wildcat for a spit. ...
Would Foss have eagerly traded his F4F for a Spit V? Would a modern observor who focuses on theoretical paper performance have done, probably; would Foss have?, I don't think that's so obvious actually.
Just like I said, the modern observer focused on a few paper stats would, I'm not sure Foss would have or should have, or to what degree.Yes I think he would have jumped at the extra 50mph, firepower and climb and then done more damage than he could do with the Wildcat.
What matters more than anything is the pilot at the controls. The fact that the Spits at Darwin used the wrong tactics doesn't mean that the plane is worse than the Zero A6M2.
Do you have any evidence that he would, or should? I don't see how the F6F was similar to the Spit V in combat results against the Zero. So you're just repeating your thesis there, the F6F was 'closer' to the Spit V because similar speed, I guess? In actual combat v Zeroes the results of those two types were not comparable at all, F6F even more effective than F4F, Spit V very ineffective, against that particular opponent. So it just circles back to the same issue, you are basically saying simple paper performance comparison determines combat effectiveness (of the plane itself), I'm saying I doubt that. Not that simple paper stats have no influence, but their influence might be overstated. We should be a little more curious and look for possibly less tangible plane factors that also may partly explain a disparity like F4F/Zero parity in 1942, v Zero dominance over Spit V in 1943. (eg. against a new poorly understood opponent who turns very well, the best turning fighter may have an advantage, or the fact that F4F turned much better than eg. Spit or Hurricane or P-40 and did better might be a total coincidence; or the F4F's suitability for high deflection shooting [low nose], etc).The question being asked was would Foss prefer the Spit V to the Wildcat. As stated in my previous posting I believe he would go for the higher performance, do you have any evidence that he wouldn't?
Do you know many pilots that turned down the Hellcat (a plane closer to the Spit V) for the Wildcat?
Interesting question.How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?
Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?
By "Darwin", I assume you're referring to Australia?How can we expect the Spit pilots defending Darwin to learn the same lessons regarding the zero in a matter of weeks which took the Wildcat pilots a year to figure out?